[saberdancer]

Isn't the instruction in fact to limit resuscitation efforts to in field? To take it to an extreme, if someone collapses and has a heart attack near a hospital, by this instruction they would have to revive the person (get a pulse/breathing) before transporting them to a hospital.

It sounds very different to what normal procedure would be. I am assuming that usually they try to get the pulse back but that they can continue to do that while in the ambulance (at least that's how it works in the movies). This change would limit that.

[DanBC]

Movies give a very unrealistic example of chance of survival after heart attacks or cardiac arrest.

People are likely to survive one, but not the other. You wouldn't know that from film where almost everyone survives.

[Noumenon72]

Could you specify which one they survive, possibly using "former" and "latter"?

[robbiep]

A ‘heart attack’ is an episode of myocardial ischaemia (restricted blood supply to the heart) usually through a blockage of an artery. Angina is a pain associated with myocardial ischaemia of a usually temporary nature. A cardiac arrest is the stoppage of the heart.

Lots of people survive the first (apart for the 250,000 Americans for whom the first presentation of heart disease is sudden cardiac death), not so many survive the latter

[oasisbob]

Normal procedures for emergency cardiac care are going to vary depending on where you are in the world.

The general dichotomy is "stay and play" vs "scoop and run".

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2215-7_31

[GavinMcG]

Transporting these patients (the ones whose pulse hasn't returned in the field) appears to worsen their chances.[0] States vary widely in what protocols they require, but normal procedure in a lot of places is to not transport if resuscitation in the field has been unsuccessful.

[0] https://www.cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/electrophysiol...